Dismissed

S.K.S.Yadav v. the Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Spe, Kochi Unit

Kerala HC12 Jul 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/1144/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the first accused against the dismissal of his discharge application, as the petitioner was absent with no representation, indicating lack of interest in prosecuting the revision. However, the trial court was directed to examine materials meticulously.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution with direction to trial court to examine materials and objections.

S.K.S.Yadav Vs the Superintendent of Police… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1144 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, LAKSHADWEEP DATED 15-02-2012

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

S.K.S.YADAV, S/O.LATE S.P.S.YADAV, RESIDING AT 3/33. RAJPUR ROAD, DELHI-110 054.

¶9

BY S.K.S.YADAV(PARTY IN PERSON)

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE, KOCHI UNIT, KOCHI-17.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI C.B.I. SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SPL.P.P. FOR C.B.I.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI SASTHAMANGALAM S AJITHKUMAR-SC CBI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.R.P. No. 1144 of 2012

¶18

-2-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C. No. 1 of 2008 of the Special Court (CBI Cases), Kavaratti, Lakshadweep. He has brought this revision against the order of the trial court in Crl.M.P. No. 60 of 2011 dated 15.02.2012 dismissing his application for discharge. Except on a few last postings, the revision petitioner has been appearing in person, but on the last two or three postings, he remained absent, and there was no representation for him. This Court had given intimation to the trial court that this Court has not granted stay of proceedings, thus, giving liberty to the trial court to proceed for trial. The original records were also sent back to the trial court.

¶21

2. When the revision petition came up for

¶22

consideration on 23.05.2019, the revision

¶23

Crl.R.P. No. 1144 of 2012

¶24

-3-

¶25

petitioner remained absent in court, and there was no representation for him. When the revision again came up for consideration on 20.06.2019, a learned counsel submitted that he would represent the revision petitioner, and he sought time to file vakalath. Such a vakalath is not seen filed in court, and there is nobody to represent the revision petitioner. He is also absent in court. It appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the revision. When the revision petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the revision, it will have to be dismissed, however, directing the trial court to go through the entire materials meticulously, and examine all the factual and legal objection raised by the first accused, including the objection as to prosecution sanction, and take appropriate decision on trial.

¶26

Crl.R.P. No. 1144 of 2012

¶27

-4-

¶28

The revision petition is accordingly

¶29

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

P.UBAID

Ds 12.07.2019

JUDGE

S.K.S.Yadav v. the Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Spe, Kochi Unit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.S.Yadav v. the Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Spe, Kochi Unit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satheesan K.P. Vs State of Kerala

B.Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Firos, Vs the State of Kerala

Emmannuel Vs the State of Kerala

Anantharaman Vs Sulaiman

Dirsha K.Muhammad Vs State of Kerala